David Brock, head of a Hillary Clinton Super PAC, launched Barrier Breakers — an online mob of paid trolls who attack any person who says a
cross word about the presidential candidate online.

Many moons ago, David Brock, now the head of a Hillary Clinton Super PAC, used every resource available to ruin the life of Anita Hill and anyone who
supported her. He would lie, cheat, and blatantly misrepresent facts if it meant getting Clarence Thomas through the Supreme Court nomination
process.

My high schooler is too much like me. He does not buy in to all the FB madness and only uses it to coordinate with school or athletic events.

As my name would indicate, I am highly introverted and I limit who/when/why I spend my time with anyone on my own terms. FB is just too much drama and
is very narcissistic. Very few people care about what you (not you personally, just in general) have to say and no one cares about what I have to say.

Since I cannot debate politics or current events in real life, I do like to do so here on ATS, but no one cares what I have to say here either, so I
don't really know why I do.

One good thing about the Correct the Records troll attacks, they will help shore up the Bernie or Bust movement, just one more reason for
#NeverHillary !

Bustle interviewed a handful of “Bernie or Bust” supporters and asked them about their reasons for refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton as
well as their plans should Sanders not win the nomination. Their answers ranged anywhere from writing in Bernie to voting for the Green Party
candidate Jill Stein to even voting for the current Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump. One reader responded by saying, “I will not vote for
Hillary Clinton ever, period. I don’t care why, I won’t. I know what she will do. If she’s in office, I know exactly what that will bring. I
will not knowingly vote for that.”

As for the reasons, there are way too many to count. Some of the biggest reasons that Bernie Sanders’ most ardent supporters are citing for their
refusal to vote for Clinton include her acceptance of campaign contributions from large corporations and Super PACs as well as the lengthy sheet of
scandals that the Clintons have been involved in over the years.

So it's totally possible that Hillary is using an old tactic or re-using someone elses psyop tactic. Or it's someone in the Trump camp settting this
up to make it look like Hillary is responsible and to make her look bad.

LOL - - making claims that its only Hillary doing this - - - is ridiculous.

A pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC has adopted the same tactics as the Kremlin, namely by paying an absurd amount to an army of online commenters to
correct “misinformed” users over social media.

The Super PAC, called Correct the Record, is spending up to $1 million to create this army, stating that so far the project has been a great success:
over 5,000 people who have directed negative comments at Clinton over Twitter have been “addressed.” The group hopes to combat anti-Clinton
comments on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram and other platforms, as well, and has brought on former reporters and bloggers to aid in the
effort.

“While Hillary Clinton fights to break down barriers and bring America together, the Barrier Breakers 2016 digital task force will serve as a
resource for supporters looking for positive content and push-back to share with their online progressive communities, as well as thanking prominent
supporters and committed superdelegates on social media,” the PAC’s press release stated.

The campaign will essentially be employing an unknown number of paid, pro-Hillary trolls to spread positive news about the candidate and counter
anyone posting negative information about her. And these aren’t just ragtag trolls living in their mothers’ basements — they are industry and
campaign professionals. As Correct the Record acknowledges:

“The task force staff’s backgrounds are as diverse as the community they will be engaging with and include former reporters, bloggers, public
affairs specialists, designers, Ready for Hillary alumni, and Hillary super fans who have led groups similar to those with which the task force will
organize.”

In response to this news, Bernie Sanders campaign staffer Mike Casca told The Daily Beast, “Our campaign and our vendors are not paying people to
reply to anti-Bernie comments on social media.” He added, “Come on man, really?”

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
This shows how this troll was recruited, note worked for dem party previously!

First, my background. I am [redacted] … and first became involved in politics during the 2008 presidential race. I worked as a volunteer for
Hillary during the Democratic primary and then for the Democratic Party in the general election. I was not heavily involved in the 2012 election cycle
(employment issues – volunteering doesn’t pay the rent), and I wasn’t really planning on getting involved in this cycle until I was contacted by
a friend from college around six months ago about working on Hillary’s campaign.

I was skeptical at first (especially after my experience as an unpaid volunteer in 2008), but I eventually came around. The work time and payment was
flexible, and I figured that I could bring in a little extra money writing about things I supported anyways. After some consideration, I emailed my
resume to the campaign manager he had named, and within a week, I was in play. I don’t want to get bogged down on this subject, but I was involved
with PPP (pay per post) on forums and in the comments section of (mostly-liberal) news and blog sites. Spending my time on weekends and evenings, I
brought in roughly an extra $100 or so a week, which was a nice cushion for me.

So what? They all pay people to represent them, and people do it...because they need the extra cash and every candidate out there knows it. I've even
done this for a campaign before for a friend of my father, a fellow politician, when I was saving up for a car.

My friend received a letter (and subsequent phone call) from a Trump organizer recently. It was for a "casting call". It said they were looking for a
Hispanic, Republican woman between the ages of 25-40 to do a taped interview. It said the woman would have to state, on camera, that she worked for
Trump in the past and list his key qualities as an employer, that she thoroughly enjoyed working for him, that he treats all of his employees very
well.

It said they had chosen her as a potential candidate for the job. It said that compensation would be discussed at a formal interview with a campaign
representative, based on her answers to a survey she had completed. This is not uncommon.

I find it highly amusing that even after Trump just admitted to the entire world that he is a liar, people still get their panties in a twist over
the idea of paid campaign supporters. But here we are.

As far as the OP, a lot is taken out of context...of course that's not new either...but if you follow the links in your own source, there is a lot of
information besides the cherry picked bit in the source material.

Like it or not, everyone is entitled to a fair trial in America. The prosecuter (who was trying to put this guy in prison) asked Hillary himself to
take the defense because no one else would, and the man had the right to an attorney just like you or me or anyone else. They knew they did not have a
strong case in the first place, so they wanted to plea him rather than risk acquittal. She was asked to defend him as a favor to the prosecutor, and
she states that very clearly.

Yes, of course she knew he was guilty. However, she was bound by law to do the very best she could do by her client. So she pled him. The law does not
care how many people believe someone is guilty. It only cares about whether or not it can be proven beyond doubt. It is far better to plea a lesser
sentence than to risk the person walking away scot free.

The OP source tries to paint a picture of her rubbing her hands together in glee that she got this guy off, but that's not what she was doing at all.
It's simply an informall account of a case that she was asked to take on when she was still a very young lawyer. It may sound callous to people out of
context, but it's just another case to them. This is their job, not something that defines them as a person. Doctors talk about their patients like
this too, but but their opinion about these people still does not stop them for doing their job to treat them.

I personally think it's a sign of desperation when when people have to dig back that far into a person's past to come up with something they can
twistt around. And that's exactly what is happening here.

Eta: Not sure why it posted in bold but it won't let me fix it on my mobile. I promise, I'm not yelling lol

It's certainly a cherished value and a major way of her being in the world.

Good thread. Thanks.

as a Clinton supporter, I love it.....the right has been nasty to Hillary for the last 25 years....and NOW she's playing hardball and the right is
whining and crying...screw them, being nice to them is a waste of oxygen and time...she's got some balls under those pant suits, and it's about
time

I'm not a supporter of anyone, but I do admire Hillary for quite a few reasons and I agree with you. They have been nasty to her, and I'm so glad
she's not taking it sitting down.

So what? They all pay people to represent them, and people do it...because they need the extra cash and every candidate out there knows it. I've even
done this for a campaign before for a friend of my father, a fellow politician, when I was saving up for a car.

LOL, that's what I keep saying.

At this level, you are not a single, grass roots guy, that calls his own shots.

"You" are a huge team that manages you and does whatever it takes to win (mostly legal, some shady).

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.